Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes the returned content and implies a read-only aggregation, but it does not mention permissions, rate limits, side effects, or whether the call is safe to repeat. This is adequate but leaves clear gaps for a composite tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence with a front-loaded purpose clause followed by a colon list of outputs and a usage directive. Every element earns its place and there is no redundant text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a composite tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description gives a solid overview of what is returned and when to use it. However, it fails to explain the only input parameter, and it omits any behavioral details such as safety or limitations, leaving a notable gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter 'codigo' is never mentioned in the description. The agent receives no clarification of what identifier to pass or its format, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states exactly what the tool delivers: buyer profile, preparation window assessment, usual competitors, and price bands with confidence. It explicitly tells the agent to use it instead of chaining several tools, which directly distinguishes it from the sibling tools buscar_productos, perfil_de_comprador, and precio_de_producto.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear context—deciding whether to bid on a tender—and explicitly says 'Úsala en vez de encadenar varias herramientas', naming the alternative approach. However, it does not state when not to use it or any edge cases, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.